Ian & Others

Quote from ACCC submission.
"Should users, for whatever reason, believe that trademarks confer superior
rights to a domain name, then the ACCC remains concerned that there may be a
rise in disputes and a trend in domain names accruing to larger businesses.
This accrual may occur because smaller parties generally lack the resources
to fight the matter through the ADR process or further, or because the
entire process may be slanted towards registrants who have trademarks. This
situation is likely to be exacerbated by the recommendation that
applications for trademarks be accepted as the basis for registrations (rec.
4.1.2), even though such applications may later be rejected by the Registrar
of Trademarks."

The above comments could also apply to selling  generic domain names to the
highest bidder.
I have written to the ACCC for clarification if and when they respond I will
post letter.


Regards

Adrian


----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Johnston <ian.johnston&#167;infobrokers.com.au>
To: <dns&#167;auda.org.au>; Adrian Brown <abrown§golook.com.au>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 12:15 AM
Subject: Methods of allocation of generic domain names in .com.au


> Adrian
>
> The short answer is "Yes", a lottery style system was considered by the
Name
> Policy Advisory Panel ... so were other methods of allocation - tenders,
> FCFS and auctions.
>
> See my co-authored contributions to Panel reports at:
>
> - Final Report (Attachment B) to auDA Board
> <http://www.auda.org.au/docs/auda-name-eligibility-final.html#ATTB>.
>
> - Proposed changes to domain name eligibility and allocation policies in
the
> .au domain space: Public Consultation Report, Nov 2000
> <http://www.auda.org.au/docs/auda-name-eligibility-pcr1.html>.
> See references to "auction" on this page.  Reproduced as Endnote 1 below
for
> ease of reference.
>
> My preferred approach was a "gateway" approach for generic names in com.au
> that hadn't already slipped through the net.  I couldn't get much support
> for this approach within the Panel.  See the SETEL submission for more on
> gateways <http://www.setel.com.au/publications/public/subs/055.htm>.
>
> In the Final Report (similar earlier working papers) I wrote:
> <http://www.auda.org.au/docs/auda-name-eligibility-final.html#ATTB>:
>
> <quote>
>
> Alternative approach
>
> The Panel could recommend that auDA engage a professional consultant or
> merchant banker to undertake a scoping study and public discussion paper
to
> more fully investigate in the issues considered in this paper.
>
> A discussion paper would be based on a study to scope the development and
> implementation of an appropriate gateway system model, probably a
> market-based one, for the allocation of generic and geographic domain name
> licences, which is in the public interest and accords with auDA
> Constitution.
>
> The issues to be considered include: .........  What rights and
obligations
> should be conferred on an applicant that is allocated a generic ... domain
> name licence under any tender or auctions system?  Are there any grounds
for
> restricting or otherwise regulating the trading of domain names that are
> allocated via market-based means?
>
> </quote>
>
> Some of these issues still need to be addressed.
>
> Why?  Well, the amount a bidder is prepared to bid for a domain name
licence
> at auction seems likely to depend upon, for example, the perceived risks
of
> loosing it in subsequent legal action, say, involving a trade mark owner
or
> an applicant for a trade mark.  If you knew you were bidding against such
a
> person, perhaps you would have second thoughts or at least discount what
you
> might otherwise be prepared to pay.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Ian
>
> ~~~~~
> Ian Johnston
> Candidate for the auDA Board
> www.infobrokers.com.au/resume
> Member, Name Policy Advisory Panel
> Member, Competition Model Advisory Panel
> mailto:ian.johnston&#167;infobrokers.com.au
>
> ~~~~~
> Endnote 1
> Source: <http://www.auda.org.au/docs/auda-name-eligibility-pcr1.html>
>
> Issue 4.2.2: Licensing of generic and geographic domain names
>
> The Panel considered the alternative view to that put as Proposal 4.2.1 -
to
> relax or abolish the policy prohibiting the licensing of generic and
> geographic domain names, having regard to community expectations, the
> interest of users and businesses and others wanting access to these domain
> names.
>
> The Panel has not included objectionable names in this proposal, as it is
> presumed that a prohibition on objectionable domain names would continue
to
> apply on public policy grounds that are well developed in broadcasting and
> other public domains. However, comment is invited on this matter.
>
> The Panel noted that generic and geographic names can be regarded as
public
> assets that should be managed in the public interest. In this context, the
> Panel considered the concept of gateways and other structured approaches
to
> the use of generic and geographic names (refer to section 4.3).
>
> The Panel also noted that quite different cases could be made out for
> generic and geographic names respectively.
>
> Permitting generic names in open 2LDs would involve major transition
issues,
> including in particular issues of allocation. The Panel considered a
number
> of methods of allocation of generic and geographic domain name licences
> having regard to the rationale for sustaining the existing policy of
> prohibition. The following methods of allocation might be used. [10] In
the
> light of public responses, the Panel may move further forward with
Proposal
> 4.2.2, and a paper will be developed on these matters.
>
> First come, first served: generic/geographic domain names are licensed to
> applicants on a first-come, first-served basis.
>
> Lotteries: lotteries are a competitively neutral and non-discriminatory
> method of allocating domain names licences, and involve applying a chance
> generator to determine the allocation of a domain name licence.
>
> Tenders: two kinds of tenders may be used to allocate generic and
geographic
> domain name licences - highest bid tenders, and 'beauty contests'; in the
> latter, the monetary bid is only one of the factors considered in
assessing
> the tender.
>
> Auctions: auctions would involve competitive price bidding for generic and
> geographic names.
>
> Proposal 4.2.2:
>
> Relax the current policy and enable licensing of generic and geographic
> domain names using an appropriate licence allocation system, such as a
> market-based one.
>
> Pros of Proposal 4.2.2:
>
> The proposal would address significant issues and problems with the
current
> policy of prohibiting generic and geographic domain names, in particular
the
> fact that the current policy is inconsistent across commercial domains.
>
> Users and business wanting to access generic and geographic names because
> they are, easily remembered, intuitive, meaningful, well known or easily
> recognisable, would be able to do so.
> The proposal would address the misallocation of scarce and valuable
generic
> and geographic domain names and enable the efficient and economic use of
> intrinsically valuable .au DNS.
>
> The proposal potentially enables the allocation of over 240,000 geographic
> names, thus providing e-commerce gateways for local businesses and
services,
> particularly in regional and rural Australia
> The proposal would enable Internet users, for their own good reasons, to
> access generic and geographic domain names with useful and important
> information (eg. www.information.com.au, www.dinner.com.au,
> www.health.com.au, www.safety.com.au.
>
> Some forms of the proposal would enable auDA to diversify its funding base
> and to provide additional funding for its core activities in administering
> the .au domain system.
>
> Cons of Proposal 4.2.2:
>
> A case is set out above, in relation to Proposal 4.2.1, for the retention
of
> the existing policy.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brown [mailto:abrown&#167;golook.com.au]
> > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 5:17 PM
> > To: dns&#167;auda.org.au
> > Subject: Fw: [DNS] Domain Names and Trade Marks
> >
> >
> > It is very interesting proposal.
> > He with the deepest pockets wins.
> > Does anyone know if a lottery style system was considered.
> >
> > >Ian Johnson Wrote:
> > > From auDA Board Meeting Minutes of 13 August 2001
> > >
> > > The board agreed to adopt the following method of allocation of
generic
> > > domain names:
> > >
> > > 1. Publish list of names refused by Melbourne IT because deemed to be
> > > generic. The list will be closed shortly before publication.
> > >
> > > 2. Advertise a 14 day period during which an interest in a name can be
> > > registered.
> > >
> > > 3. Interested parties must complete an application form to demonstrate
> > > that as at 13 August 2001, they were eligible to hold the name under
the
> new
> > > policy rules.
> > >
> > > 4. At the end of the 14 day period, auDA will assess the applications
> > > received. There are 3 scenarios:
> > >
> > > a. If there is only one eligible applicant for a name, that applicant
> may
> > > reserve the name by paying a fixed price (eg. $100) to auDA. The
> applicant
> > > will be able to register the name under the new regime for the normal
> retail
> > > price.
> > >
> > > OR
> > >
> > > b. If there is more than one eligible applicant for a name, those
> applicants
> > > may proceed to a closed auction for the name. The winner of the
auction
> > > may reserve the name by paying the amount bid to auDA. The winner will
> > > be able to register the name under the new regime for the normal
retail
> price.
> > >
> > > OR
> > >
> > > c. If there are no eligible applicants for a name, the name will
become
> > > available for registration under the new regime on a first come, first
> > > served basis.
> > >
> > > Note that the generic domain names will be registered by registrars,
not
> > > by auDA. auDA will receive the proceeds of the auction, it will not
> receive
> > > payment for generic domain names when they are registered after the
> auction.
> > >
> > > The board decided that while the list of generic domain names will
> remain
> > > open until shortly before the auction, applicants for generic domain
> names
> > > should be eligible to hold the name as at 13 August 2001.
> > >
> > > This will minimise the opportunity for people to register business
names
> > > solely for the purpose of registering generic domain names. This is
> intended
> > > as a measure of protection for those people who have applied for names
> in
> > > the past and would otherwise have been eligible to hold them but for
the
> > > restriction on generics. ER voted against this decision.
> > >
> > > Action: auDA staff to further develop the implementation plan for the
> > > auction of generic names, including the technical means and cost of
> > > conducting the auction.
> > >
> > > --
> > > This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum
without
> > > express permission of the author. 322 subscribers.
> > > Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns,
> > pass: dns)
> > > Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.
> > >
> >
> > --
> > This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
> > express permission of the author. 324 subscribers.
> > Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass:
dns)
> > Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.
>

--
This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 324 subscribers. 
Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.